PTAB

IPR2015-00573

Itron Inc v. Certified Measurement LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Secure Measurement Acquisition and Certification
  • Brief Description: The ’310 patent discloses a device for securely acquiring and certifying a physical measurement from a sensor. The system generates an "augmented measurement" by combining a digital signal from the sensor with a time signal, and then performs a cryptographic operation on this data to create a verifiable, tamper-resistant "certified measurement."

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1 and 12 are obvious over Johnson in view of Hershey.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Johnson (Patent 5,673,252) and Hershey (Patent 5,239,584).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Johnson, which relates to an automated meter reading system, discloses nearly all limitations of the challenged claims. Johnson's system uses a Network Service Module (NSM) with sensors to measure energy consumption, a clock for time data, and a processor to combine these into data packets. Petitioner contended that the Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) performed on these packets in Johnson constitutes the claimed "cryptographic operation" to generate a "certified measurement." For dependent claim 12, Johnson’s disclosure of the NSM in a "sealed housing" was argued to meet the "secure enclosure" limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Hershey with Johnson to enhance security. While Johnson provided basic integrity via a secure enclosure and a CRC, Hershey taught more advanced encryption and authentication protocols specifically for utility monitoring applications. A POSITA would have recognized the benefit of incorporating Hershey’s superior security features to improve upon Johnson’s system and protect against evolving threats to communication networks.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because both references are directed to automated metering systems, and Hershey was expressly designed to improve such systems by adding authentication and encryption layers to existing communication protocols.

Ground 2: Claims 1 and 12 are obvious over Simmons in view of Peterson.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Simmons (a 1988 IEEE article) and Peterson (a 1982 U.S. Geological Survey report).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Simmons, which discloses an encryption protocol for authenticating seismic sensor readings to verify treaty compliance, teaches a device that acquires secure measurements. Simmons describes using a downhole seismometer (the sensor) that generates seismic data, which is combined with time data and cryptographically processed for authentication (the "certified measurement"). For dependent claim 12, Petitioner asserted that Simmons' downhole sensor package, designed to be buried and detect tampering attempts, constitutes a "secure enclosure."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Simmons with Peterson because both relate to seismic monitoring networks and use similar seismometer technology (the KS 36000). While Simmons provides the high-level cryptographic and authentication framework, Peterson provides the specific implementation details for a large-scale, networked seismic sensor system (the Regional Seismic Test Network or RSTN). Petitioner argued that Peterson supplied the practical, nuts-and-bolts details a POSITA would need to build out the system conceptualized in Simmons.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because the combination involved applying Simmons' authentication methods to a network like Peterson's, which was a well-understood engineering task. Peterson’s system was built upon experiences from a prototype network that was developed contemporaneously with and by the same organization as the Simmons technology.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "certified measurement": Petitioner argued this term requires the certification to have already been completed, distinguishing it from the term "certifiable" used in related patents. Based on the specification and prosecution history, Petitioner proposed the construction: "a result of a cryptographic operation performed on at least a portion of an augmented measurement." This construction is central to arguing that the prior art's application of a cryptographic function meets the limitation.
  • "cryptographic operation": Petitioner contended this term should be construed broadly to encompass a wide range of data assurance methodologies, not just encryption with a secret key. Petitioner argued that the specification explicitly includes one-way functions like a CRC, message authenticity code (MAC), and hashing as examples of cryptographic operations. This broad construction was critical for Ground 1, where Johnson's use of a CRC was asserted to satisfy this claim element.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1 and 12 of the ’310 patent as unpatentable.